RE: Watered down BDSM

RE: Watered down BDSM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/25/2006 9:09:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *These things annoy me* Hello A/all, Interesting. You allow a thing to annoy you. I am a follower of the opinion espoused by Peyton Quinn in "The Bouncers Guide To Barroom Brawling." To whit, "Either you are in control of yourself, or somebody else is." In your case, something else is. I am extremely protective of my own emotional state. I do not grant the power to alter it to most other people or inanimate objects or posts from people I dont know in cyberspace. I have been wrong before, I will probably be wrong in the future. If I am not emotionally strong enough to face and learn from things I do not agree with or that I feel uncomfortable about, I tend to believe I wont end up learning anything. I force myself to actively listen to things even if I find them uncomfortable. As I taught my kids, it is not possible to speak and listen at the same time. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy edited for clarity

LordODiscipline -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 3:13:16 AM)
quote: Hello A/all, Interesting. You allow a thing to annoy you. I am a follower of the opinion espoused by Peyton Quinn in "The Bouncers Guide To Barroom Brawling." To whit, "Either you are in control of yourself, or somebody else is." In your case, something else is. I am extremely protective of my own emotional state. I do not grant the power to alter it to most other people or inanimate objects or posts from people I dont know in cyberspace. I have been wrong before, I will probably be wrong in the future. If I am not emotionally strong enough to face and learn from things I do not agree with or that I feel uncomfortable about, I tend to believe I wont end up learning anything. I force myself to actively listen to things even if I find them uncomfortable. As I taught my kids, it is not possible to speak and listen at the same time. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy *Wow -* *You are my hero!* You are definitively overreacting and overacting... and, where-as you may very well be omnipotent, I must be just missing all of the shrines with pretty candles lit in abbeyance - I am not positive that you are as grand as your press says you are. *Everyone gets annoyed by something...* *It is petty, minor, and human thing.* *Don't read more into it than there is in order to puff your ego.. I am sure I annoy you as well..* ~J PS: Must the thread be about people instead of the topic? What leads people to sniping at others instead of simply discussing the issues as brought forth. As though that makes a flagging argument right? <---all rhetorical questions that do not bear an answer.

twicehappy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 4:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreSwank Brother, All good-lovin' sexual deviants just need a place to go. The CollarMe.com Peace Bus..............rolling soon through your hometown!!!!!!! You ride the bus and welcome to it; i'll be one of those dressed in leather gunning the Harley running straight pipes as i pass you......

KnightofMists -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 5:13:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Don't read more into it than there is in order to puff your ego.. I am sure I annoy you as well..* I would put my money on Amusement rather than Annoyance.... but that's me.... I could be wrong.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:06:21 AM)
quote: PS: Must the thread be about people instead of the topic? What leads people to sniping at others instead of simply discussing the issues as brought forth. As though that makes a flagging argument right? <---all rhetorical questions that do not bear an answer. *I agree.* *As to the topic at hand. KnightofMists asked "where do we draw the line?"* Every thing needs a starting point and most of the time it isn't a clearly marked path but if we look hard enough I'm sure it's there someplace. On that other thread the gay liberation movement was brought up and I ran with it, just like I'm going to do here.... When they decided to come out of their proverbial closets there was little if any support from the rest of society (just like us, huh?) yet they found the line. Chances were good that if you were bi-sexual you didn't get into that club and it made sense... bi-sexual does not equate to homosexual. In BDSM there are just some things that do not fit in. If we were just poly we would be one of those square pegs trying to fit in to the world of BDSM, but we were BDSM long before we were poly... that's where the rounded corners came from and that's what makes us fit in to this little umbrella. With that reasoning behind me... I believe that if a persons kink has absolutely nothing to do with BDSM (bondage, disipline, sadism and masochism) then they do NOT fit under this little umbrella. (I also believe that an M/s relationship can exist without BDSM) That doesn't mean they don't fit any place, I'm sure they do, it just isn't here. But in order to acheive that small of a goal one must first agree on a definition of each part of the whole... not something we as a group excel at. Lam (where are you?) would tell us that dictionaries simply report the widely accepted definitions of words... So, going by his logic, I believe the first step in finding said line would be to find the widely accepted definitions of words and labels we commonly use in this lifestyle. Any takers?? As it so happens, while I was typing this twicehappy was/is creating a post where everyone will have the oppotunity to do just that... state what you believe the definitions should be. It's a step... and any step is better then stagnating as we have been. *Jewel*

LadyMorgynn -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:19:44 AM)
Here I thought "D" was for Domination! ;) As such, I do fit right in. I am not into S&M at all, but do fit into the D/s strata encompassed by BDSM. quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel With that reasoning behind me... I believe that if a persons kink has absolutely nothing to do with BDSM (bondage, disipline, sadism and masochism) then they do NOT fit under this little umbrella. (I also believe that an M/s relationship can exist without BDSM) That doesn't mean they don't fit any place, I'm sure they do, it just isn't here. *Jewel*

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:32:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyMorgynn Here I thought "D" was for Domination! ;) As such, I do fit right in. I am not into S&M at all, but do fit into the D/s strata encompassed by BDSM. quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel With that reasoning behind me... I believe that if a persons kink has absolutely nothing to do with BDSM (bondage, disipline, sadism and masochism) then they do NOT fit under this little umbrella. (I also believe that an M/s relationship can exist without BDSM) That doesn't mean they don't fit any place, I'm sure they do, it just isn't here. *Jewel* *Ok, so I come from way off in left field... nothing I didn't already see in myself... lol* *A lot of people do indeed include D/s in to the mix... but note... I never said anything about D/s... I said "M/s"... and to me there is a difference.* *Jewel*

juliaoceania -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:34:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyMorgynn Here I thought "D" was for Domination! ;) As such, I do fit right in. I am not into S&M at all, but do fit into the D/s strata encompassed by BDSM. quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel With that reasoning behind me... I believe that if a persons kink has absolutely nothing to do with BDSM (bondage, disipline, sadism and masochism) then they do NOT fit under this little umbrella. (I also believe that an M/s relationship can exist without BDSM) That doesn't mean they don't fit any place, I'm sure they do, it just isn't here. *Jewel* Well as far as this site goes, it is called "Collar Me" which denotes ownership and D/s and M/s relationships.. so it seems you are in the right place in my mind!

LadyMorgynn -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:46:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel *A lot of people do indeed include D/s in to the mix... but note... I never said anything about D/s... I said "M/s"... and to me there is a difference.* *Jewel* D/s and M/s it seems to me are both very subjective definitions, and what is D/s to one, is defined as M/s to another. I call myself a Domme rather than a Mistress, because to me a Mistress is more likely to denote a Top and not necessarily a Dominant. But that again is subjective, adn depends on the observer making the connection between "Domme" and "Dominant" and not just lumping, Dominant and Top and Mistress and everything else into the same category/definition... which is in fact how these are all usually perceived anyway. The bottom line is, we can call ourselves anything we want to, and someone out there is going to a) think we're something else, given their own definition of whatever term we use; and/or b) tell us we are wrong and we should be using term "x" instead.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 9:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyMorgynn quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel *A lot of people do indeed include D/s in to the mix... but note... I never said anything about D/s... I said "M/s"... and to me there is a difference.* *Jewel* D/s and M/s it seems to me are both very subjective definitions, and what is D/s to one, is defined as M/s to another. I call myself a Domme rather than a Mistress, because to me a Mistress is more likely to denote a Top and not necessarily a Dominant. But that again is subjective, adn depends on the observer making the connection between "Domme" and "Dominant" and not just lumping, Dominant and Top and Mistress and everything else into the same category/definition... which is in fact how these are all usually perceived anyway. The bottom line is, we can call ourselves anything we want to, and someone out there is going to a) think we're something else, given their own definition of whatever term we use; and/or b) tell us we are wrong and we should be using term "x" instead. *Hence the need for more widely recognized definitions to the terms we use in this lifestyle. It always comes down to the same thing... you notice that?* *Jewel*

Frank01 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 9:04:42 AM)
A definition that can mean anything means nothing.

Frank01 -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 9:06:23 AM)
And as far as the diapered moon barker- if it gets dragged around on the end of a leash by an Owner-is it still not firmly under the umbrella?

LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 9:28:54 AM)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I do have a multi-level interaction myself, to which really is influenced by the individuals I interact with. I do practice the M/s relationship with those who live the lifestyle with me. There are times where the 24/7 is in house. Some cases where 24/7 is off premise, as will be the case at the moment as I am care giver to an elderly parent that is not lifestyle friendly. As soon as she is in a facility, I will have slaves back in the house. I do actively interact with a SWITCH, who is strictly Heavy S&M. He TOPS predominantly but, he submits as a BOTTOM for me exclusively. I also have a Dominant/submissive relationship with a few gentlemen, who don't have the slave mindset but, do have the submissive mindset. One is Gay, one is Lesbian, one is Bi-sexual. That said, there may be in the distant future a level in growth that may support a slave mentality but, they're not at that point yet. All have been non-sexual. All have been with distinct roles. All have been with some sort of protocols in place. The S&M being the setting of just one protocol, which is when my vest is on-it is time for S&M business until I take it off. Others have more protocols in place. Thus, discipline is an element found in all interactions, its the degree that is different. All have some sort of bondage. From invisible to physical (my preferences are invisible and chain) As a presenter, teacher, mentor -- I see myself more as a TOP frame, as most volunteers are not 'mine' per se., to which I have no intimate personal commitment but, more as a service commitment and or educational mindset/commitment/discipline. However, I am usually seen by students as a master of the art. When I interact with Gay Leathermen, I am seen as a Master or SIR (depending on the interaction and degree of it); some see me as Mistress/Ma'am. When I interact with Lesbians, I am to some a Master or SIR and Mistress to others. When I interact with the SWITCH in S&M, I am called Master during the scene and afterwards -- just Hugs. I don't tell people how to address me as a demand. I prefer those who interact with me address me as they see me as. When I came to computers, Hugs as a screen name was already taken, so I titled myself as Lady Hugs as not to be confused with an existing Master Hugs. Lady Hugs stuck ever since. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

ScooterTrash -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 4:40:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Frank01 And as far as the diapered moon barker- if it gets dragged around on the end of a leash by an Owner-is it still not firmly under the umbrella? LOL..at that point Frank..I would say they qualify. It's the diapered moon barkers, that are ONLY diapered moon barkers that I seem to have an issue with.

IslandHeat -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 4:51:04 PM)
I personally define BDSM as Bondage & Discipline, Domination &Submission, and Sadism & Masochism. I'll probably get flamed for my interpretation, but I don't care. I think as long as ANY group makes themselve more EXclusive, and less INclusive, they thin their own ranks, and make themselves weaker. If you want to make yourself part of a weaker and more easily discriminated against minority, that's up to you! I would like to be inclusive enough that those who would legislate morality to me would think twice because of what a voting block that would be represented. But as long as there are those who say "you're not into my particular kink, you're not REAL" we will be divided, and more easily oppressed!

juliaoceania -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 6:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IslandHeat I personally define BDSM as Bondage & Discipline, Domination &Submission, and Sadism & Masochism. I'll probably get flamed for my interpretation, but I don't care. I think as long as ANY group makes themselve more EXclusive, and less INclusive, they thin their own ranks, and make themselves weaker. If you want to make yourself part of a weaker and more easily discriminated against minority, that's up to you! I would like to be inclusive enough that those who would legislate morality to me would think twice because of what a voting block that would be represented. But as long as there are those who say "you're not into my particular kink, you're not REAL" we will be divided, and more easily oppressed! I agree

LadyHugs -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 7:03:51 PM)
Dear ScooterTrash, Ladies and Gentlemen; Interesting thing about 'diapers.' It is a form of 'bondage' I suppose. Certainly contains those hanging chads. Older individuals learn to Depends on them to hold things in tidy and contain leaks. Its when the bondage gets a wee bit heavy and sags and drags and or loose them altogether. `Tis the answer to the voice in song; "Born Free." Gives a whole new meaning to 'disposable bondage.' The girdle could also be considered bondage or a chaste device. Had one frustrate a chaps efforts to get to...err nebbermind. But, is was as good as if there was a bear trap. Respectfully submitted with a LOT of good natured humor, Lady Hugs

Sinergy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Wow -* *You are my hero!* *I am sure I annoy you as well..* I have a list of individuals I grant the power to alter my emotional state. You are not on that list. Enjoy having me as your hero, but I personally have no emotional attachment to whether you consider me a hero or not. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/26/2006 8:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I would put my money on Amusement rather than Annoyance.... "I used to be disgusted, now Im just amused." Elvis Costello Sinergy

onestandingstill -> RE: Watered down BDSM (9/27/2006 7:54:03 AM)
I say those that feel no need to protect their subs from things are indeed watering down the BDSM dynamic. Those self professed Doms who do not have integrity or honor in their possession of subs are indeed polluting the face to face as well as cyber lifestyles. If more Doms lead appropriately the system would not be as bogged down with the pathetic things that we are commonly seeing these days. I admit many sub/slaves also have poor views of their position. and what their place is and are equally responsible of the bar being set so low. To me expecting a Dom to be a man of maturity, integrity, his word & to live his life with honor has nothing to do with a sub topping him. It's the path she wants to follow him on. Many Doms lead these good subs right off cliffs. I think those that expect him to live up to HIS OWN SELF PROFESSED position are indeed not topping him or trying to control him. It's that if he can't control himself or keep his word he chose to give how can he control or lead others. That is a huge issue in watering down this life. suzanne .

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125